WJR hits the fan with iBiquity??

[davideduardo]

Fine. So since you've written off AM, give us one valid reason why we should pay attention to you. Why don't you go save some other broadcast service that's more worthy of your insights?

Your market is not as bad as many... about 15% of local commercial station listening is to AM. Nearby Watertown is less than 8% AM listening. Utica is 10.7% AM.

Listeners have written off AM. The few that remain are mostly over 55.

If your programming is so good, as you say it is, you should be exploring alternative delivery, like WiMax.

 

[Dighton Rockhead]

It's beginning to look more and more like WiMax, and not HD might be THE thing that could possibly save AM radio.

I hate giving the devil his due, but......Mr. Eduardo does have a point in that, for the most part, AM radio has really hit the skids. Let's use the market I live in as a typical example......Arbitron #39, otherwise known as Providence/Pawtucket/Warwick, RI:

10 AM stations that serve (or at least try to serve) the market. This, by the way, includes 1 daytimer, 2 suburban rimshots, and 1 station silent since sometime around Valentine's day.

Of these 10, only perhaps 4 at most, really "saturate" the market with really useable signal both day and night.

What about programming, you might ask?:

3 News/Talk, (if you include the NPR station)
2 Religion
1 Sports
1 Spanish
1 Radio Disney
1 Brokered
1 Silent

Not a really cheerful picture, is it?

 

[davideduardo]

ONLY FOURTEEN AMs? ...MAN! ...Size DOES matter to you, David! And which “are not good facilities” – 1290 WHIO Dayton possibly? I think you’ll find that it is one of the few [former] Class 3 large-market AM stations that STILL manage their metro well.

The bad signal is why they now simulcast the format on FM.

As for WSB’s remedial position relative to Atlanta’s FM roster... Are you sure that you’re not confusing it with directional WGST? I have driven the length of Georgia several ways--many times, and cannot remember ANY Atlanta FM matching WSB’s daytime groundwave coverage via a good car radio.

Most listening is not in the car. WSB barely covers the metro with a usable groundwave, so bad is the conductivity. And I am not confusing WGST, either in its original 920 package or the current 640 one, with WSB. WSB, by the way, is severely interferred with at night even inside the metro by RCR 750 in Caracas, a 100 kw non-directional AM with monster coverage.

As tho your comment on WPHT, remember that it is the highest on the band of the old 1A clears, and covers less than either KYW or WFIL... yet folks who do not understand conductivity, noise levels and the relationship of coverage to frequency can't understand why WFIL always had a better signal daytime.

 

[davideduardo]

It's beginning to look more and more like WiMax, and not HD might be THE thing that could possibly save AM radio.

I hate giving the devil his due, but......Mr. Eduardo does have a point in that, for the most part, AM radio has really hit the skids. Let's use the market I live in as a typical example......Arbitron #39, otherwise known as Providence/Pawtucket/Warwick, RI:

10 AM stations that serve (or at least try to serve) the market. This, by the way, includes 1 daytimer, 2 suburban rimshots, and 1 station silent since sometime around Valentine's day.

Of these 10, only perhaps 4 at most, really "saturate" the market with really useable signal both day and night.

What about programming, you might ask?:

3 News/Talk, (if you include the NPR station)
2 Religion
1 Sports
1 Spanish
1 Radio Disney
1 Brokered
1 Silent

Not a really cheerful picture, is it?

Good analysis... BIA only credits PRO, HJJ and PMZ as viable AMs for the whole market which is 6 counties. AM listening only gets a 9.9 share, and less than a 5 share in under - 55 year olds.

 

[Savage]

[EDIT]

His message is a relentless, negative, defeatist drumbeat of AM is dead, AM is dead, AM is dead. (And, parenthetically: it's THE FAULT OF BROADCASTERS like Savage for not "embracing" HD-AM fast enough or soon enough.)

It's obvious that the service has problems, but constantly bashing AM radio is hardly a productive contribution to the discourse.

Actually we at WYSL have been doing our best, 24/7, to do what responsible and professional broadcasters do: serve our audience, offer a quality on-air product and deliver good value to our advertisers. It must be working. We're having the best year in our history, notwithstanding the death notices tiresomely chanted by the likes of Mr. Gleason. Anyone who has any familiarity with our operation - that would exclude, by definition, David Gleason - has nothing but respect for what we do. I think I recall a post to that effect from Clouseau, with whom I also disagree on HD-AM, but at least he and I can have a civil, spirited debate.

My advice, for what it's worth, is to reject the nastiness. If David Gleason feels so strongly that "it's too late to save AM," we should note that and let him move on to more productive pursuits than squatting on this board and repetitively trashing something others obviously still care about.


[EDIT-inflammatory]

 

[hipporadio]

And which “are not good facilities” – 1290 WHIO Dayton possibly?

The bad signal is why they now simulcast the format on FM.

[EDIT] WHIO did indeed create a simulcast on the rim-shot 95.7 Piqua signal. For the most part, Cox did it to TEMPOARILY-augment early-morning and night coverage in neighboring Clark County [Springfield, OH]; and they “flipped” the sagging 80s format FULL-WELL KNOWING that the 95.7 frequency was headed to suburban CINCINNATI [Springboro] in a complex and ongoing rulemaking that HAS NOTHING to do with WHIO AM’s coverage [or as you contend—LACK THERE-OF]!

IF the fortunes of News/Talk 1290 WHIO AM rested on use of 95.7, WHY would Cox accept them for ONLY a brief period until that facility was DOWNGRADED to a LOWLY CLASS-A and moved a full market south? Your vast repertoire of broadcast trivia many flatter some radio-fraternity “pledge”; but you’re well-into my old stomping grounds here; and your use of this line of “bluster” can only be accepted on its face by “the uninitiated”!

[size=10pt]I have driven the length of Georgia several ways--many times, and cannot remember ANY Atlanta FM matching WSB’s daytime groundwave coverage via a good car radio.

Most listening is not in the car...

ALWAYS AN ANSWER, David... Doesn’t matter that it’s a silly one! So let’s see... YOUR definition of an “unviable AM station” now-transcends its outdoor coverage in the car and moves INDOORS to the land of $20 GPX clock radios, burglar alarms, and aquarium heaters : ...What are the likes of WBBM, WGN, WLS, and possibly [soon] even WLW to do in the face of your dire and dangling definitions? [EDIT]you have just mortally-wounded your beloved IBOC AM system with your logic! Last time I checked, iBiquity-flavored “HD” on the AM band fared even-WORSE than ANALOG against concrete walls and computer R.F.

[EDIT]

If David Gleason feels so strongly... let him move on to more productive pursuits than squatting on this board and repetitively trashing something others obviously still care about.[/size]

Have you ever taken a deep breath and purposely-endured the approach of a carnival midway “barker”? You may-NOT have been in the market for the stuffed-Duck, but you couldn’t resist the “entertainment value”.

[EDIT]


[EDIT-inflammatory]

 

[hipporadio]

AMEN Brother Bob! This is THE BEST ANALOGY in print I have yet encountered that describes the current state-of-affairs in the Radio industry – and description of its apologists, self-absorbed “leadership”, and narrow self-interest... YOU ARE TO BE COMMENDED [but I pray – not censored] for your frank display of common sense!

I’m next going to hit “print” on your post and share it with MY industry executive who needs no “magic act” to display HIS self-worth. He’ll have “a hoot” and possibly—a better day courtesy of your wisdom!

 

[davideduardo]

My advice, for what it's worth, is to reject the nastiness. If David Gleason feels so strongly that "it's too late to save AM," we should note that and let him move on to more productive pursuits than squatting on this board and repetitively trashing something others obviously still care about.

Yeah, let's sweep the steepening decline in AM listening under the carpet and do nothing about it.

As I said, I never thought that HD was the perfect solution, although it offered some hope for younger demos in an era where there are two whole generations of non-AM listening. And I have said it may be to little and to late to help AM anyway. But I sure don't see any other ideas...

As a former owner of over a half-dozen AMs, I have as much right to give my opinion as you do. Suggesting I not give my comments is like the proverbial Greek trait of executing the messenger who bears bad news... you don't change the message, and you make it really rough finding new messengers.

 

[RadioFixerCLE]

No matter how many engineering gimmicks you try, it always comes down to the PROGRAMMING.

Why do so few people listen to AM radio? Because the programming SUCKS. Let's quit making excuses that FM radio steals from AM. If you have solid hit programming, people will find your signal, and advertisers will follow those listeners.

You think the average Joe is going to run out to buy an HD radio so he can listen to scum like Bill O'Reilly or Michael Savage in "crisp clear stereo"? Most of the ones who like these shows could care less -- they're listening on little clock radios with 2.5" speakers.

I'm not saying don't make the station sound good. Just don't think that "good audio" is going to attract listeners if your programming is third-rate garbage.

 

[davideduardo]

No matter how many engineering gimmicks you try, it always comes down to the PROGRAMMING.

Why do so few people listen to AM radio? Because the programming SUCKS. Let's quit making excuses that FM radio steals from AM. If you have solid hit programming, people will find your signal, and advertisers will follow those listeners.

What the news talk stations that have moved to FM or have added FM simulcasts have found is that they suddenly have lots of 35-54 listeners that they only had minimally when on AM. In other words, the existing news talk formats work on FM for salable 35-54 demos, while they attract far less of this group on AM. It's all about the transmission system... AM has little appeal due to its lousy sound with anyone under 45 or 50 today. So any format for AM has to appeal principally to this group.

 

[RadioFixerCLE]

I'm thinking that the additional listenership is because these people -- who most likely work in office buildings and can't pick up AM stations inside them. I'm one of them, that's why the bulk of my daytime radio listening is FM . The bulk of my evening/nighttime listening is on AM, however -- and I'm 31 years old. If there was an FM simulcast of the AM stations I listen to, I'd tune over to that.

Maybe stations SHOULD simulcast -- that's how you get the benefits of both: Long range on AM for distant listeners and for local areas where AM is non-existent, there's the FM.

I think that's the theory behind WNYC-AM/FM's simulcast. This station dropped the daytime music shows and flipped their FM to a simulcast of the talk station on AM, which has increased their listenership, according to them.

But they've KEPT the AM instead of dumping some other format on that station (or selling it off), because they realize that it is still valuable and has its uses.

AM has little appeal due to its lousy sound

And IBOC isn't helping matters any.

On the contrary, since so few (almost nobody outside of us geeks) have HD radios, much less HD radios that work properly on AM, they're stuck with an analog signal that is now plauged by hiss from IBOC and tinny or tubby sound from mis-adjusted processors that literally causes fatigue after a short period.

The quality of modern, inexpensive AM radios leaves a LOT to be desired. Most of these things are wide as barn doors. In New York, using one of these, you're lucky if you can pick up two or three of the strong stations. But even then, you'll have them either cross-talking or showing up at multiple spots on the dial.

 

[ve3jf]

"Virtually no additional listeners with HD."
Perhaps, but you do get extended coverage with AM-HD at night, so the potential is there.

"Smaller coverage area with HD."
For AM, not true. Digital modulated sidebands have better coverage in the fringe area than analog only.

I'd like to see some evidence presented to back up these assertions about AM-HD coverage at night. I haven't seen any broadcasters bragging about their wonderful digital nighttime coverage, and with good reason - it's almost certainly going to be embarrassingly small. This is an inevitable consequence of usurping your adjacent channels in order to run digital.

Let's try a few back of the envelope calculations. In order to get any digital audio, you've got to decode at least one of the primary digital sidebands (preferably both, if you want some robustness against fading), which have 64QAM modulation. Now, what SNR do we need for decoding? According to the textbook I just grabbed off the shelf, 64QAM with coherent detection and a fairly powerful BCH error-correcting code will deliver a low (10E-6) bit error rate when the SNR is 19.4 dB. But let's be generous, and assume that system can work with an SNR of 16 dB.

Now we come to the tricky part - what's the "N" in the SNR? It's basically the RSS sum of the skywave signals on the 1st adjacent channels. Since our AM-HD station has little or no protection on these channels, these signal levels tend to be quite high - the received field strength (10% skywave) can easily reach 2-4 mV/m, but let's be conservative and say that it averages 1 mV/m. If our primary digital sidebands need a 16 dB margin over these signals in order to be decoded, then they need to have a field strength of at least 6 mV/m or so. But the power in each digital sideband is 16 dB below the analog carrier power, so the analog field strength at this point is thus about 36 mV/m.

So, my back-of-the-envelope estimate says that nighttime digital coverage won't extend much beyond the AM-HD station's 36 mV/m contour. Even if I was out by a factor of two, that's still pretty shabby, and hardly worth doing, considering the havoc that thos digital sidebands are wreaking on other analog stations. A system that provides service only within a small radius, and creates interference over a radius that is many orders of magnitude larger, is a bad system, period.

This stuff has been on for nearly a month now, so where's all the measurements to show how it's performing at night? I recall seeing someone on this board from the Chicago area posting that at night, he loses digital service from all of the local HD stations except one, WLS. He gave his approximate location, so I used the V-Soft zip code lookup service to guesstimate the field strengths of the local HD blowtorches at his location. WLS came in at 48 mV/m, while the others ranged from 11 to 16 mV/m. Kinda fits with the above calculations, doesn't it? It should be easy for other folks who have HD receivers and nearby AM-HD stations to make the same kind of observations, so let's hear about 'em!

Barry

 

[SUPERCASTER]

You tell 'um Steph!
I agree completely.

 

[awj223]

What the news talk stations that have moved to FM or have added FM simulcasts have found is that they suddenly have lots of 35-54 listeners that they only had minimally when on AM. In other words, the existing news talk formats work on FM for salable 35-54 demos, while they attract far less of this group on AM. It's all about the transmission system... AM has little appeal due to its lousy sound with anyone under 45 or 50 today. So any format for AM has to appeal principally to this group.

Your mistake is assuming that AM stations should be competing head-to-head with FM stations for the same market segment. Did you ever stop to think that maybe AM should try to differentiate itself from its FM competitors? In the early days of radio, stations would broadcast regular drama and sitcom type programming. With the advent of TV, they saw the writing on the wall, realized that they could not compete with the TV version of the same programming, and eventually switched over to formats more acceptable to audio only content. I'm sure there were those who thought TV would be the death of radio, because it was superior in every way, and offered all radio could (the audio) and then some...or was it? Radio found a new niche.

So rather than trying to compete directly with FM, AM stations should look at their competitive advantage and go after different market segments. FM stations, with their 200 kHz channels, will always have the better bitrate and more crisp sound. What they will never have is the range of AM. AM stations need to use this to their advantage.

 

[mimo]

I'm thinking that the additional listenership is because these people -- who most likely work in office buildings and can't pick up AM stations inside them. I'm one of them, that's why the bulk of my daytime radio listening is FM . The bulk of my evening/nighttime listening is on AM, however -- and I'm 31 years old. If there was an FM simulcast of the AM stations I listen to, I'd tune over to that.

Maybe stations SHOULD simulcast -- that's how you get the benefits of both: Long range on AM for distant listeners and for local areas where AM is non-existent, there's the FM.

I think that's the theory behind WNYC-AM/FM's simulcast. This station dropped the daytime music shows and flipped their FM to a simulcast of the talk station on AM, which has increased their listenership, according to them.

But they've KEPT the AM instead of dumping some other format on that station (or selling it off), because they realize that it is still valuable and has its uses.

AM has little appeal due to its lousy sound

And IBOC isn't helping matters any.

On the contrary, since so few (almost nobody outside of us geeks) have HD radios, much less HD radios that work properly on AM, they're stuck with an analog signal that is now plauged by hiss from IBOC and tinny or tubby sound from mis-adjusted processors that literally causes fatigue after a short period.

The quality of modern, inexpensive AM radios leaves a LOT to be desired. Most of these things are wide as barn doors. In New York, using one of these, you're lucky if you can pick up two or three of the strong stations. But even then, you'll have them either cross-talking or showing up at multiple spots on the dial.

I mentioned the same thing about a simulcast in another thread somewhere on the board. When I lived in the states and a simulcast was available, I'd always use the AM side, less drop outs and multipath, which REALLY gets on my nerves. I will never listen to a sports broadcast on FM. Especially while in a moving vehicle for that very reason, I tried that once while living in Iowa, listening to a chiefs game and I missed touchdown passes, interceptions and other things during crucial points of a game. Instead I tuned to an AM that was 4 hours away and never missed a play. I also lived 30 miles south of an AM/FM simulcast and found the FM was useless where I lived. Not only would I drop out, there was a first adjacent 30 miles the other way that would take it out, so the little 500 watt AM was what I tuned into and it far outperformed it's 6000 watt FM by a go0d 90 miles. The simulcasting is what the CBC is doing in Western Canada. It's for the office towers downtown where AM is either very weak or non-existant, these FM translators do not cover the whole city, they're just there to supplement the AM signal where it can't be received in town. I'm only one year older than you Stephanie, It's go0d to see another 30 something advocating AM.

awj223 mentions that AM should differentiate itself from FM. I couldn't agree more. The theory in Canada for years that AM was supposed to be an alternative or compliment for FM. Both offering completely different programming, whether it was music based or not. I FIRMLY believe that it's the programming that attracts listeners, not the band. I know people who are under 30 (some in their teens) who WOULD tune in an AM station if it offered them what they wanted. They don't care about the source, as long as they get what they want.

I go where the programming is that interests me, whether it's AM or FM, and I listen to both bands equally....well that's not entirely true...I favour the AM dial, but only by an extra hour or two a day. Am I the only one who notices that computers can interfere with FM just as much as AM? We can't even listen to FM in our office because of all the noise from the computers. In my parents house, there's significant computer noise on FM to make portions of the band unusable, but no AM noise, unless I'm stupid enough to put the radio right next to the monitor....In the house I live in, neither band is that listenable FM due to bleedover from 3 transmitters a few blocks away and my ro0m mates unshielded computer and AM due to my ro0m mates unshielded computer, but I can at least null that out on a go0d portion of the band.

Getting back onto topic of HD. I've noticed that the 800's section of the AM dial was pretty noisy last night, the 700's were clear. I didn't hear any hash out of WCBS or WOR last night. ¿Did they have their Iboc off? WFAN likes to turn theirs on and off.

 

[davideduardo]

So rather than trying to compete directly with FM, AM stations should look at their competitive advantage and go after different market segments. FM stations, with their 200 kHz channels, will always have the better bitrate and more crisp sound. What they will never have is the range of AM. AM stations need to use this to their advantage.

So, what other segment is there? Essentially, AM is taking some of the older segment that does not mind AM. But, as has been amply proven in a couple of dozen markets, when the formats identified with AM move to FM, they do better demographically.

What, other than religion, Farsi or infomercials, could be put on AM?

 

[RadioFixerCLE]

WFAN likes to turn theirs on and off.

FAN was doing NJ Devils hockey last night and they turn IBOC off during sports events.

It went back on right after the last shot of the game was called.

 

[JohnnyElectron]

Niche music formats on AM - if you play it, they will go there.

 

[davideduardo]

Niche music formats on AM - if you play it, they will go there.

Yeah, just like the miserably failed alternative format on WHAT in Philadelphia. If you play stuff for senior citizens, some of them will go there but most will stay on FM listening to classic rock, country, adult contemporary, urban gold, oldies, etc.

 

[Savage]

As long as the industry keeps thinking about AM (and, for that matter, FM) the same way, you're right - the answers will remain elusive. But they've been writing the obit for AM radio as long as I've been in the industry, which is now longer than 40 years. It has historically been the most innovative and unkillable medium of mass communication in the history of mass communication. If the industry suits can be shaken out of their defeatism and circumscribed thinking, what awj suggests is spot-on. Which, by the way, is ANOTHER on a growing list of why HD-AM is a bad idea: long-distance coverage is an advantage offered by AM, not a relic which should be discarded.

Once again: Dr. Savage prescribes a conference room, Hipporadio, Supercaster, Tom Wells, Barry McLarnon, Scott Fybush, Steph, Watt Hairston, your humble correspondent, and a big stack of smokin' hot pizzas.

Oh, and BEER. Ice-cold. And lots of it.